Jeez, nobody is advocating a 12-step rehab program for serial rapists here. Rehab programs for petty drug possesion is exactly what we're talking about. This is reminiscent of how people turn "we don't think people should be able to own 12 bazookas" into "we want to go door to door and take away your granpa's shotgun." Or, to be fair, how "we don't think you should be able to have abortions in the last trimester except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life and health" turns into "we want to outlaw condoms."

And while I like Martin O'Malley (even though he's a complete asshole), I wouldn't call him a progressive democrat.

Of course, you are using the actual number of crimes instead of crimes per capita. Given the fact that the US has a HUGE number of people compared to every European country, this point is moot.

The murder rate is what is always cited to demonstrate America is more dangerous than Europe (it's true we always have way more murders per capita), but the overall crime rate is actually pretty comparable to other industrialized countries. London in 2003 is actually looking like New York in 1983, and vice-versa. It's no use pointing this out to them though, as Europeans will always find something to be smug about.

"Of course, you are using the actual number of crimes instead of crimes per capita. Given the fact that the US has a HUGE number of people compared to every European country, this point is moot."

How many times must this be pointed out...

America's crime rate-especially violent crime-is much much higher than any other nation of equal development in the world. And not just because of a larger population; go do the math. You can't just dismiss things and crow "this point is moot"; it's a serious issue here, and really it's not something that I'd have thought you'd want to make excuses for. Wouldn't you actually, y'know, LIKE to tackle the issue of crime in your country, so that your nation is safer, rather than trying to make excuses? And I'm not simply making an attack on Republicans here, because there's been a problem with crime in the US for a good two decades now.

Of course, you are using the actual number of crimes instead of crimes per capita. Given the fact that the US has a HUGE number of people compared to every European country, this point is moot.

Actually, I'm using per capita stats, and in terms of per capita stats the USA beats out every other First World nation by a country mile with the exception of Great Britain and Russia. And if you remove the fine English tradition of nonviolent burglary from the total, the US jumps sharply ahead of even Great Britain, leaving the States in second place behind a country that until the last two years was almost entirely controlled by criminal mobs.

We don't do so bad. Go to page 17, which has the victimization risk (everything else is either only homicide or by absolute totals). We're better than England, Scotland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Australia, and Canada. We're worse than Northern Ireland, Finland, Potugal, Spain, Switzerland, and Japan. We're on the same level as Belgium and France (damn it, my two least favorite countries on that list).

And when it comes to "contact crimes" (essentially violent crime) only Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Japan do better than us.

I don't see what the problem is.

It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.

Originally posted by spf2119Fair enough logic Kaz, but then tell me why in this, the most perfect democracy in the world, the shining light of freedom are so many of our citizens compelled to commit crimes? What is it about our country that seems to drive such an enormous amount of our citizenry to commit crimes which we as a populace have in some form or another deemed as worthy of incarceration?

1 - Your system that penalizes everything instead of trying to change the criminal 2 - your huge gap between poor and rich makes ppl do things they shuoldnt do.3 - your social system which leaves alot of people on the outside

that are big reasons I believe (as far as I can see as an outsider) i am not saying there are better ways (the Netherlands has alot of trouble too) but well..

Number 2 I would argue with, as the gap between rich and poor in other countries is much greater. There may be more filthy rich Americans compared to other countries, but in America to be considered poor, you essentially have to want to be poor. Anyone can get a job that can/should provide for them--sadly not everyone will. Combine our economy to that of say, FRANCE, and I will take ours anyday. I can't remember the last time a crazed mob tried to run down and kill an economic minister (I believe it was France's agriculture minister to be exact), and I can't remember the last time we almost elected someone like Le Pen......

Rorschach: "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."

This is simply untrue. One of the major economic crises facing lower-class America right now is that minimum wages have not increased at the same rate as rent costs - forcing low-income earners to work multiple jobs, which often results in a 50-60 hour workweek.

Combine our economy to that of say, FRANCE, and I will take ours anyday.

France has the sixth largest economy in the world, you know. It's nothing to sneeze at.

and I can't remember the last time we almost elected someone like Le Pen

Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, David Duke - American government, particularly the Southern right, has a long history of barely-veiled racism. Glass houses and stones, dude.

Originally posted by godkingStrom Thurmond, Trent Lott, David Duke - American government, particularly the Southern right, has a long history of barely-veiled racism. Glass houses and stones, dude.

There is a big different between people who run for office, and people who almost get elected. Le Pen had widespread support in France, and came very close to winning. None of these guys ever came close to being President...

Yeah, there are some whackjob congressmen out there (You forgot Byrd), but an oddball district electing a kook and an entire nation almost electing a Nazi are two totally different things...

This is simply untrue. One of the major economic crises facing lower-class America right now is that minimum wages have not increased at the same rate as rent costs - forcing low-income earners to work multiple jobs, which often results in a 50-60 hour workweek.

Someone working minimum wage 40 hours a week can afford about $267.80 in rent. This is based on 30% of pre-tax income for rent.

This will get you a small apartment in most places in the U.S. (of course, it won't even get you a parking space in New York - literally - but that's another problem). Your average person can cetainly support THEMSELVES on a full-time, minimum wage job (it won't be a fun existance, but they won't starve or be homeless). The problem comes when you have a family trying to live on this income. Part of me wants to not blame the poor kids for their condition. You can't expect 2-year olds to work or fault them for their mom or dad having a minimum-wage job.

On the other hand, if you're making minimum wage, maybe it's not time to have kids just yet. Just a thought.

Regardless, we need a raise in the minimum wage and index it to inflation. If a Republican/Liberatarian could show me some actualy historical evidence that raising minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, rather than quoting from Cato Institute theorectical studies as evidence this is a fact, maybe I'd change my mind.

It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.

I have to agree with Moe. Also I want to add to that. Minimum wage is for new workers, part time workers, and people with second jobs. I started at minimum wage at age 17. 4 years later I was making $3.00 more an hour. I got the raises and promotions because I was a good employee. If people don't get a raise after a while they should look for another job. I have no real problem with programs that help out people for short periods of time (6 months or less) but if people choose to be lazy, unfocused, and stoned that's their problem not our problem.

Moe--I don't know if you have an hour or 50 to kill, but here's (swcollege.com) a website with a whole mess of links to studies about the minimum wage. It does a nice and thorough job of showing both sides of the issue and links to some empirical studies.

If you are familiar with the theoretical reasons economists argue that it increases the unemployment, it's good to recognize that the assumptions behind this are a perfectly competitive labor market (so no worker or company have any type of market power at all), all workers in the labor force receive the minimum wage and wages have no impact on productivity (so you work just as hard at $6.15 as you do at $6,150 an hour). FYI because it's fun to rebut conventional wisdom and that's a good one because most people who make that argument do not truly understand it so you can pick it to pieces (if you like that type of thing).

The more empirical studies that argue the minimum wage increases the unemployment rate generally cite the unemployment rate for people with low education (which generally rises when the minimum wage rises), cite the correlation between low education and minimum wage and use this as their evidence for rising unemployment rates for the people the minimum wage purports to help. Most studies have also shown that: A) The vast majority (around 75%) of workers receiving minimum wage are not the head of their household; and B) There is a huge degree of mobility so that the person receiving minimum wage today will not be receiving it in six months (sort of like Dahak's situation).

Personally, I would rather see a larger earned income tax credit to reward people for working rather than a higher minimum wage because the higher minimum wage is more readily transformed to households in the form of higher prices, which results in higher inflation. An increase in the earned income tax credit will provide an incentive to work without affecting the cost of production, prices paid by consumers (which then bite poorer households more than richer) and therefore inflation. You can do something for lower income households without the bad side effects, even if you don't consider an increase in the unemployment rate as a likely side effect.

Originally posted by godkingOne of the major economic crises facing lower-class America right now is that minimum wages have not increased at the same rate as rent costs - forcing low-income earners to work multiple jobs, which often results in a 50-60 hour workweek.

Not a crisis...sorry. If you can't afford rent on your own, you work together with others so that you can afford rent. There are alternatives to this. A problem? Sure, but not a crisis to justify higher wages that will creative inflation and higher rent costs.

Originally posted by godking and I can't remember the last time we almost elected someone like Le Pen

Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, David Duke - American government, particularly the Southern right, has a long history of barely-veiled racism. Glass houses and stones, dude.

You forgot about the urban left, some of whom are elected (i.e. John Conyers, Adam Clayton Powell, Maxine Waters, Carole Mosley Braun) and some not (Jesse Jackson, Farrakhan).

There is a world of difference between John Conyers and Louis Farrakhan. None of the others you mentioned could be remotely compared to David Duke. That's just insulting. And Adam Clayton Powell was probably one of the most conservative congressman in New York (not saying much, I know) during his time on a lot of issues.

Now, these guys you mentioned have certainly had their problems with ethics situations and such, but that's because they're politicians, not because they're racists.

You should have put Cynthia McKinney on there. That would have made you sound a bit more reasonable.

To be fair, I suppose there's also a difference between David Duke and Trent Lott. At least a sober Trent Lott.